Transfer pricing adjustments must stay limited to associated enterprise transactions, while comparable selection depends on reliable functional comparability.

Transfer pricing adjustment must be confined to international transactions with Associated Enterprises and cannot be extended to the entity's entire turnover. The ITAT also upheld rejection of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method because controlled transactions with Associated Enterprises are not uncontrolled comparables, and sustained adoption of the Transactional Net Margin Method as the most appropriate method on the facts. It further held that a higher-turnover comparable need not be excluded absent evidence of functional or economic distortion, and that a company with incomplete financial data could properly be rejected from the comparables set.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method could be rejected and the Transactional Net Margin Method adopted for benchmarking the international transactions; (ii) Whether the comparable with higher turnover was liable to be excluded from the comparables set; (iii) Whether the comparable with incomplete financial data was rightly rejected; (iv) Whether transfer pricing adjustment could be made at entity level instead of being restricted to international transactions with Associated Enterprises.

Issue (i): Whether the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method could be rejected and the Transactional Net Margin Method adopted for benchmarking the international transactions

Analysis: Comparable transactions with Associated Enterprises are not uncontrolled transactions and cannot form the basis for benchmarking under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method. On the facts, rejection of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method and adoption of the Transactional Net Margin Method as the most appropriate method was justified.

Conclusion: Decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the comparable with higher turnover was liable to be excluded from the comparables set

Analysis: No turnover filter had been applied by the transfer pricing authorities or by the assessee, and no material impact of turnover disparity on profitability was shown. Mere higher turnover, by itself, was insufficient to reject the comparable in the absence of a demonstrated functional or economic distortion.

Conclusion: Decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the comparable with incomplete financial data was rightly rejected

Analysis: The record showed that only limited figures were available and the financial results could not be properly analysed for comparability. The concurrent factual finding that the company lacked sufficient financial data for a reliable comparison called for no interference.

Conclusion: Decided against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether transfer pricing adjustment could be made at entity level instead of being restricted to international transactions with Associated Enterprises

Analysis: Transfer pricing provisions operate only in respect of income arising from international transactions with Associated Enterprises. Adjustment cannot be extended to the entire entity turnover where the statute confines the exercise to those covered transactions.

Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only on the limited question of restricting the transfer pricing adjustment to international transactions with Associated Enterprises, while the remaining transfer pricing challenges were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Transfer pricing adjustment must be confined to international transactions with Associated Enterprises, and comparable selection must be sustained where the assailant fails to show a legally relevant basis for exclusion.

---